Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that a plaintiff’s post-removal joinder of an in-state car dealership was improper in a products liability case arising out of an Audi Q5 that burst into flames while being driven on a smooth roadway.

Syed Ali was driving an Audi Q5 on a flat and smooth Illinois roadway. After striking a piece of road debris, the car burst into flames, causing Ali to suffer multiple injuries. He brought an Illinois products liability lawsuit against Volkswagen Group of America, the Audi’s domestic manufacturer. Volkswagen removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved successfully to amend his complaint to name Volkswagen’s overseas parent, Audi AG. When the plaintiff filed his amended complaint, however, he also named Illinois citizen McGrath Imports, Inc., the dealership that sold the Audi. The plaintiff alleged that McGrath was liable under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Responding to the district court’s direction to submit position papers on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the defense argued that joinder of McGrath had been improper and that the case should remain in federal court.

The district court concluded that the plaintiff had joined McGrath improperly. Citing case law, the court found that courts conducting a post-removal joinder analysis must consider the plaintiff’s motive for seeking joinder, the amendment’s timeliness, whether denial of joinder will prejudice the plaintiff, and other equitable concerns. Applying these considerations here, the court found that the plaintiff did not have a viable claim against McGrath under the consumer fraud act, which grants a cause of action to consumers who purchase merchandise. The plaintiff has not pleaded facts surrounding the purchase of the car or asserted that he had personally purchased the vehicle, the court said, adding that the plaintiff also has failed to explain his relationship to the company that owned the car.

Even if the plaintiff could prove he was a consumer for purposes of the act, he has not pleaded sufficient facts suggesting he has a viable fraud claim, the court found. The plaintiff has not stated the particular circumstances regarding the defendant’s alleged fraud, the court said, and failed to state McGrath’s actual misrepresentations during the vehicle’s purchase, making the plaintiff’s chances of surviving a motion to dismiss highly unlikely.

The court also concluded that the timing of the plaintiff’s joinder of McGrath justifies ruling for the defense in that the plaintiff, who has received no new information about the dealership, could have named this dealership in the initial complaint. The court reasoned that denying joinder does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a timely fraud cause of action in state court, finding that the plaintiff will thus not suffer injury from dismissing McGrath from this case.

Accordingly, the court concluded that joinder of McGrath was improper and served only to destroy complete diversity. The court therefore held that McGrath could not be joined.

Citation: Ali v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 2020 WL 5250669 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 2020).